Thread by @Noahpinion

This thread illustrates what always, to me, seemed like the fundamental problem with the BBB bill. No one could ever really decide what it was *about*. I had my own ideas for what it should be about, but everyone else had their own ideas.

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1471544287796072453

For a long time the bill's main selling point was "it's big". That seemingly allowed every progressive to sort of graft their dreams onto the idea of the bill, even though it only really had the potential to be transformative in a couple of areas.

I feel like BBB has become a symbolic stand-in for the fact that a lot of progressives want America to change in a lot of different ways, all at once.

And the bill was just never going to be able to do that.

Some of this is due to the constraints imposed by the filibuster. But a lot of it is the fact that the progressive movement represents an alliance between a bunch of splintered, disparate groups who've made common cause but whose visions of change emphasize very different things.

All of the progressive groups would be fine with a radical overhaul of America, as long as that overhaul included the specific, focused change they themselves are pushing for.

But as soon as any sort of constraint is imposed on change, that vision falls apart.

Yes, the filibuster forced an up-or-down vote on the whole agenda (but progressives kinda wanted that anyway). A piecemeal approach like FDR did, with a series of focused bills with strong simple purposes, probably would have been more effective.

But the basic problem here is the constraints. Even with no filibuster, progressives would have to get Manchin and Sinema to vote for every piece of the agenda. What were the odds of that ever happening??

The fact is, the electorate is more conservative than would be required to implement a progressive agenda of a scope sufficient to get all the disparate activist groups and interest groups on board. That would also be true without gerrymandering.

The centrism of the electorate is also the reason Dems get so few shots at reconciliation -- because everyone expects the GOP to gain in the midterms. Dems probably didn't win a big enough majority in 2020 to hold off the inevitable force of midterm reversal.

Facing an electorate that is simply not on board with the idea of major across-the-board redesign of American policy, progressives could choose to focus on a few key changes -- as when Obama decided to focus on health care and finreg as his signature long-term reforms.

But the movement is no longer being led by a few elite leaders who can decide what to prioritize. In this age of upheaval and unrest, progressivism is basically a headless, grassroots movement. So there was little chance of focusing or prioritizing.

Yes, Biden's people managed to keep the climate focus of BBB, which A) is really the most economically important piece and B) probably has the weakest support form both voters and interest groups.

That is good.

But few people are talking about BBB as mainly a climate bill.

Outside of the still-OK climate subsidies, the bill overall remains a mishmash of disparate programs trying to all squeeze themselves into a container that Manchin might vote for, while using fake sunsets to disguise their true cost from Manchin.

Of course, Manchin is not fooled by fake sunsets and will demand the removal of these pieces of the bill.

Something will eventually pass, but it will be something that leaves progressives deeply frustrated and disillusioned.

Ultimately it comes down to this: A vast array of progressive groups made a pact to support each other's visions of change, and the country didn't want change on a scale commensurate with the simultaneous satisfaction of all of these visions.

Dunno what else to say.

(end)